- as akin to voter’s right to secret ballot
New Delhi, Nov 1.
The central government defended the anonymous electoral bond scheme in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, insisting that the shift from earlier cash payments to political parties to electoral bonds was better, as also it insisted that donors enjoy a right to privacy akin to the right to secret ballot enjoyed by a voter.
Right to privacy would extend to the donor’s political views or ideology, if any, the government said in fresh written submissions made in court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued these points in court before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud when he said that this right to donors to privacy was akin to the right of the voter to vote in secret to prevent any future victimisation over his political choices.
The SG also opposed any attempts to disclose under the RTI those donating huge amounts to political parties under the cloak of secrecy. In any case, the government does not have the information, the submissions said.
As the information was with the state-owned State Bank of India (SBI), it said, referring to the bank as a non-state actor. Electoral bonds are issued through this bank, which is the largest in the country, for limited periods during a year.
While some insist that this is only to sponsor elections, others say that there is no limitation on how a political party actually spends the money. Under the law though every political party is mandated to file audited account books to the Election Commission.
In practical terms though there is no consequence to non-filing and hence vague, inconsistent affidavits are the norm.
The government also claimed the process of financing parties through electoral bonds was an improvement over the earlier process in which parties were allowed to get funds by way of cash from their supporters.
Citing ADR studies, the government said that fifty per cent of such cash came from unknown sources and were never revealed. On this ground the government opposed any return to the earlier “suitcase politics” era, an allusion to cash taken by political parties during the Congress rule. Electoral bonds are sold only to established parties which have won over 1 per cent votes in the last elections.
They have to be redeemed within a limited window or they lapse. The money is then refunded to the donor. The donor can only be known to the bank or the investigative agencies should they choose to do so. Those opposed to the scheme say that the anonymity cloak is a channel for bribes and quid pro quo and is a severe threat to our democracy.
The government claimed that the court should not and cannot sit on judgement over a scheme that is part of a larger government policy to control corruption and bribery in elections.
